On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2008, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I honestly don't see how you can compare
these cases. One is an
editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on
to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it
wants.
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures
That does not fulfil the demand for removal of the images from Wikipedia.
- and, more
importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what
we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we,
er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly
different-looking one! Win-win.
And we have thrown away our principles to appease religious zealots -
who still won't be satisfied. Lose-Lose.
A situation
where neither side gets any of what it wants cannot
accurately be described as a compromise.
So you perceive the only adequate solution is to cave in to one side
or the other? I would hope the project was willing to at least *aim*
higher...
I perceive that attempting to appease the fundamentalists by a
so-called compromise solution will be the thin end of the wedge, and
there will be no chance of our resisting their further demands.
Appeasement is weakness - I would hope the project is strong enough to
stand up for the things in which it believes.